code.
It would be beneficial to make the behaviour consistent between those 2 cases.
Thanks for your input
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:51 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2016, Igor Shevlyakov wrote:
>
>> Small sample below fails (at least on 6.1) for multiple targets. The
&
Guys,
Small sample below fails (at least on 6.1) for multiple targets. The
difference between two functions start at the very first tree pass...
Please confirm that I'm not crazy and it's not supposed to be like this...
Thanks
--
#include "limits.h"
#include "stdio.h"
int* __attribute__((noinl
issue machines just some reordering
but it will help many multi-issue...
What the pitfalls or this approach are?
Thanks
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 8:55 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 01/14/2016 04:47 PM, Igor Shevlyakov wrote:
>>
>> Guys,
>>
>> I'm trying to make com
Guys,
I'm trying to make compiler to generate better code on superscalar
in-order machine but can't find the right way to do it.
Imagine the following code:
long f(long* p, long a, long b)
{
long a1 = a << 2;
long a2 = a1 + b;
return p[a1] + p[a2];
}
by default compiler generates somethin
